You are here:
NZLII >>
Databases >>
New Zealand Bill of Rights Act Reports >>
2017 >>
[2017] NZBORARp 49
Database Search
| Name Search
| Recent Documents
| Noteup
| LawCite
| Download
| Help
Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill (Consistent) (Section 19(1)) [2017] NZBORARp 49 (2 November 2017)
Last Updated: 9 January 2019
2 November 2017
Hon David Parker, Attorney-General
LEGAL ADVICE
LPA 01 01 21
Consistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990: Parental Leave
and Employment Protection Amendment Bill
- We
have considered whether Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill
(‘the Bill’) is consistent with the
rights and freedoms affirmed in
the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (‘the Bill of Rights
Act’).
- We
have not yet received a final version of the Bill. This advice has been prepared
with the latest version of the Bill (PCO 20771/1.9).
We will provide you with
further advice if the final version of the Bill includes amendments that affect
the conclusions in this
advice.
- The
Bill amends the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act 1987 to extend the
duration of paid parental leave from 18 to 22
weeks from 1 July 2018 and from 22
to 26 weeks from 1 July 2020.
- In
December 2001, in relation to the Parental Leave and Employment Protection
Amendment Bill, and in July 2015, in relation to the
Parental Leave and
Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave and Work Contact Hours)
Amendment Bill, we considered whether
the paid parental leave scheme gave rise
to an issue of discrimination on the grounds of sex and marital status under
section 19(1)
of the Bill of Rights Act. We concluded that, having regard to the
degree of deference that is appropriate when dealing with complex
social policy
issues,1 the discrimination could be justified in
terms of section 5 of the Bill of Rights Act.
- Given
that the current proposal under the Bill is to progressively increase the
maximum duration of paid parental leave from 18 to
26 weeks, we do not consider
that the changes proposed in the Bill materially alter that conclusion.
- We
have concluded that the Bill appears to be consistent with the rights and
freedoms affirmed in the Bill of Rights Act.
Jeff Orr
Chief Legal Counsel Office of Legal Counsel
1 See, for example,
Attorney General of Canada v JTI-MacDonald Corp [2007] 2 SCR 610 at [41
– 43].
NZLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.nzlii.org/nz/other/NZBORARp/2017/49.html